Aus Driver's unconscious action led to fatal collision, court told

The defendent's story? Riiiiiiiiiiight. (not)
jc (photo of alleged perp at link)

Driver's unconscious action led to fatal collision, court told
KIM ARLINGTON
October 14, 2009
Manslaughter charge ... the accused, Penelope Woodbridge, with her
barrister, Eugene Wasilenia. Photo: Simon Alekna

AN INTOXICATED driver who caused a fatal collision is defending a
manslaughter charge on the grounds that she was suffering from automatism
triggered by a conversation with her former husband.

Whether the driver, Penelope Woodbridge, was acting voluntarily when she was
behind the wheel, or was in a dissociative state and not conscious of what
she was doing, is a key issue in her District Court trial.

The court heard that on the afternoon of July 18, 2007, Ms Woodbridge drove
from her workplace in Pymble to Normanhurst - a distance of nine
kilometres - before crossing to the wrong side of the road and hitting an
oncoming car.

The other driver, Maher Haddad, was seriously injured. His wife, Evette, was
killed. A half-empty bottle of wine was found in Ms Woodbridge's car.

She denied that she had been drinking and declined to be breath-tested. A
sample was taken later, and the court heard evidence that her estimated
blood alcohol level at the time of the crash was in the range of 0.294 to
0.332.

Ms Woodbridge has pleaded not guilty to Mrs Haddad's manslaughter and to
causing Mr Haddad grievous bodily harm while driving under the influence of
alcohol.

The Crown Prosecutor, Huw Baker, contended Ms Woodbridge chose to drive, and
was acting consciously and voluntarily. She became intoxicated and then
drove negligently, it was alleged.

But the defence barrister, Eugene Wasilenia, said there was psychiatric
evidence that Ms Woodbridge had been in a dissociative state that day,
triggered by a traumatic phone conversation with her former husband.

In his closing address yesterday, Mr Wasilenia reminded the jury of evidence
from a psychiatrist, Carolyn Quadrio, that Ms Woodbridge had a history of
periods of dissociation, followed by periods of heavy drinking, after
traumatic events.

Mr Wasilenia told the court that the call from Ms Woodbridge's former
husband, accusing her of slashing his tyres, was ''part of a long sequence
of unpleasant, threatening behaviour'' and set off her dissociative state.

Driving a car was a habitual, familiar act, he said. ''People do these
things and appear normal when they are doing them, except for maybe an
occasional giveaway to someone who knows them really well,'' he said.

The trial heard that with Ms Woodbridge's blood alcohol levels, it was
difficult to distinguish whether alcohol or dissociation might have been
operating at the time. There was also conflicting expert evidence from a
psychiatrist, Stephen Allnutt, who believed the former husband's phone call
was not severe enough to trigger a period of dissociation.

He detailed nine reasons that Ms Woodbridge had not been in a dissociative
state at the time of the crash. In his opinion, previous incidents in her
life were related to alcohol, not to dissociation.

Despite her history of contact with medical professionals, she had not
previously been diagnosed with a dissociative disorder, the court heard. It
was the defence case that the issue was not explored because Ms Woodbridge
had been treated as someone with an alcohol dependency.

Mr Wasilenia urged the jurors ''to look beyond the obvious'' when
considering their verdicts. Their deliberations will continue today.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/drivers-unconscious-action-led-to-fatal-collision-court-told-20091013-gvq2.html


.

Quantcast